Concentrated-extract intensity and OAV are different metrics. Prose on PDF281 gives a furanmethanol intensity inconsistent with Table1; PDF287's 'only detected' language should be read as OAV>10, because the compounds also occur in the other sample. No recombination test establishes a complete flavor model. Fresh September28: Table1 includes57 assigned/tentative rows plus5unknowns. Recoveries include18% for3-methylbutanoic acid and149% for ethyl2-furoate; DMTS recovery isND despite reported concentration. High calibration fit does not demonstrate unbiased quantification.
Commercial samples JF12 and GY30 at12–14% ethanol. Sensory intensities272–276, calibration/recovery277–280 and concentrations/OAV283–286. Acids showed low recovery; published thresholds came from multiple references.
Two dry rice wines were studied with extraction/fractionation, three trained GC-O assessors and quantitative analysis. The paper reports fifty-seven identified aroma compounds plus unresolved odor peaks. Odor-activity screening emphasized dimethyl trisulfide and several esters and aromatic compounds, but analytical recovery varied considerably.
288
264
Chapter 16; PDF-page numbering
September28: full chapter freshly read and relevant figures/tables inspected. Paraphrase remains a bounded source representation; new numerical/method qualifications added. PDF locators retained.
No access
Evidence
Two dry rice wines were studied with extraction/fractionation, three trained GC-O assessors and quantitative analysis. The paper reports fifty-seven identified aroma compounds plus unresolved odor peaks. Odor-activity screening emphasized dimethyl trisulfide and several esters and aromatic compounds, but analytical recovery varied considerably.
Location and context
Wenlai Fan and Yan Xu. Chapter 16: Characteristic Aroma Compounds of Chinese Dry Rice Wine by Gas Chromatography–Olfactometry and Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry. Supplied PDF 264–288.
Commercial samples JF12 and GY30 at12–14% ethanol. Sensory intensities272–276, calibration/recovery277–280 and concentrations/OAV283–286. Acids showed low recovery; published thresholds came from multiple references.
Annotation
Concentrated-extract intensity and OAV are different metrics. Prose on PDF281 gives a furanmethanol intensity inconsistent with Table1; PDF287's 'only detected' language should be read as OAV>10, because the compounds also occur in the other sample. No recombination test establishes a complete flavor model.
Fresh September 28 qualification: Table1 includes57 assigned/tentative rows plus5unknowns. Recoveries include18% for3-methylbutanoic acid and149% for ethyl2-furoate; DMTS recovery isND despite reported concentration. High calibration fit does not demonstrate unbiased quantification.
Verification checklist
Verified as an accurate representation of this source, not an independent replication of its results.